TEACHERS' SENSE OF SELF-EFFICACY, ENGLISH PROFICIENCY, …

Exposure Journal 40

Volume 9 (1) May 2020, page 40-58

Copyright ©2020, ISSN: 2252-7818 E-ISSN: 2502-3543

Available online:

https://journal.unismuh.ac.id/index.php/exposure

Exposure: Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris

TEACHERS' SENSE OF SELF-EFFICACY, ENGLISH

PROFICIENCY, AND TEACHING ABILITY IN EFL SETTING:

A CASE STUDY IN TERTIARY LEVEL

Dwita Laksmita Rachmawati1, Dian Fadhilawati2

1Universitas Merdeka Pasuruan, Indonesia 2Universitas Islam Balitar, Indonesia

[email protected]

[email protected]

Received: December 17, 2019 Revised: March 12, 2020 Accepted: May 10, 2020

ABSTRACT

One important character which should be owned by teacher that influence the outcome of

teacher is called as teacher self – efficacy. However, the correlation between teacher’ self

– efficacy and linguistic proficiency hasn’t really investigated yet. Hence, this research aims

to examine the connection between language proficiency to their efficacy perceptions. The

participants of this research were 11 teachers of private University in Indonesia with

various demographic characteristics. They were asked to answer related to the Teacher

Efficacy Scale (TES) and recognize their linguistic proficiency self – rating. The statistical

analyzing result which used Pearson – product moment correlation and Regression analysis

showed a signification correlation between teacher’s self – efficacy and their proficiency

level. The regression results also affirmed that the possibility level of proficiency of self –

efficacy beliefs of teachers in classroom activity. The findings of this research are

elaborated in relation to the previous research.

Keywords: Teacher’ Self-Efficacy, Linguistic Proficiency, Tertiary Education, EFL

Teachers, and Linguistic Competence

INTRODUCTION

A significant challenge which is faced by the teachers is to adjust all

student–centered strategies, methodologies and teaching learning to grow the

competence and uplift the independent learning environment. The fortune of those

teaching and learning activity will depend on the increase of teacher’s self–

perception and confidence to indulge any changes relate to learning-centered

models of teaching (Sahin & Yildirim, 2016). The teacher’s professionalism had

been examined utterly as a main issue in education. It is acknowledgeable that

teachers’ professionalism had been increasing time to time and in line with

education need. That condition had been a challenge for governments and

pedagogues to give maximum result. The Indonesian government itself has tried to

address this problem by implementing and improving education reform. It can be


Exposure Journal 41

Volume 9 (1) May 2020, page 40-58


Available online:



seen by the release of the issuance of No.14 Act 2005 about Indonesian pedagogues

by government. This focuses on improving the training of pedagogues.

Furthermore, their expertise is defined by an integrity in accordance with the

principles of professional education. Pedagogues will therefore have a certified

professional educational background and have some effect as practitioners. Such

competencies are including: 1) intellectual competence, 2) emotional competence,

3) interpersonal competence, 4) technical competence (Richards, 2017).

Significantly, teachers’ competence will be identified with how well

teachers are able to play their role as pedagogues, including how well the class

preparation run, and how the students and teaching evaluation need to be

implemented, how teachers succeed to control the class and credits, and how long

the teacher needs to assess all of those process properly. The mention criteria above

can be defined the teachers’ performance when they are being evaluated according

to their task’s accomplished within the specific time. Meanwhile, the teaching

performance is judged based on the individual factors of the teachers (which include

willing, interest, motivation, characteristics, and individual perceptions) and

institutional factors (which include duties according to functional position, working

climate, leadership, career path, rewards, and colleagues) correlate with an

innovation reached when pedagogues accomplished their depend on the required

quality, quantity and time needed (Richards, 2017).

Pedagogues play a role to enhance and assist learners’ effort to reach the

goal-setting and expanding the suitable learning strategies to construct their

knowledge. As stated by Vygotsky (1987), teachers, as a mediator, shall customize

their teaching strategy and apply to their learners’ zone to gain maximum

knowledge development, for instance to students’ growing capabilities. Meanwhile,

‘pedagogues are contributors to organize subject–centered knowledge and learning

activities of their learners’ learning journey by present suitable mediation to help

them extend their current competence limit (Richards, 2010).

A factor which relates to pedagogical ability is teacher’s self–efficacy

(Ayoobiyan & Soleimani, 2015). Self-efficacy can be called as self-perception, it

plays a big role to shape how teachers choose tasks and learning activity, shaping

their efforts and perseverance to address specific challenges, and balance out their

emotional management even to complicated situation. This self-efficacy eventually


Exposure Journal 42

Volume 9 (1) May 2020, page 40-58


Available online:



describe a cognitive construction which mediates between action and knowledge

development (Eslami & Fatahi, 2008) Pedagogues who owns high level of

confidence, showing immense willingness to apply new teaching methods, design

and organize their teaching activity better, including more enthusiastic and

satisfying (Siew & Wong, 2005). Briefly, self-efficacy affects to teaching practice

and attitude during educational process and the outcome of it.

Whatever that teacher knows, thinks and believes are related to what they

would do during teaching process. Specifically, their self-perception of capabilities

of teaching method, expressed teachers’ self-efficacy which are arranged as

powerful instruments of teachers’ perception as they need to engage to the task they

give and in which they feel more competent and shun in areas that they do not feel

competent on (Khanshan & Yousefi, 2015). Therefore, self-efficacy is the most

central psychological mechanism which influence the actions. Universal research

on education found out that teachers’ self-efficacy will not only impact the teaching

practice choices but also will impact the whole teaching environment. For example,

high self-efficacy of teachers would bring positive improvements for students’

learning activity, in contrary, those who has low self-efficacy would think that

external elements would bring more influence rather than the teaching choices of

theirs (Ayoobiyan & Soleimani, 2015).

Other than self-efficacy, the other factor of teaching is none other than

language proficiency. Teaching process is a very contextual-based process and has

the factors to contribute during teaching process, including to teacher’s expertise.

Hence, there is no specific acceptable criteria to identify the teachers’ expertise

(Faez & Karas, 2017). Yet, language proficiency level of a teacher has been a major

concern for measuring the teacher’s teaching proficiency. Awareness of the English

competence of the English teacher is teacher’s linguistic competence including

teachers’ ability presenting a good model of English education, maintain English

fluency and usage, identify students errors, present suitable feedback and catch in

improvisational teaching activity (Faez & Karas, 2017). It is also important aspect

to considerate that teachers’ language proficiency level brings impact to their

confidence in teaching abilities and recognition of their professional validity

(Eslami & Fatahi, 2008).


Exposure Journal 43

Volume 9 (1) May 2020, page 40-58


Available online:



According to the essence of the language instruction, the primary purpose

of the study in language teachers’ self-perception was to establish a relationship

between their confidence in using English as a medium of instruction and their

language skills of the instructor. The material and teaching method are taught in the

English language classroom. Targeted language proficiency was a major anxiety

problem for teachers who are non-native speaker. Meanwhile, opposed to native

speakers, non-native English teacher believe that their language skills are

insufficient, most of the time. That’s because the misperceptions of their linguistic

ability (Tsang, 2017). To learn effectively, the pedagogues have to put more trust

in their competence to bring out great learning outcome. The native speakers’ norm

in delivering English Language Teaching (ELT) face challenges to balance out and

maintaining their integrity and capability as English teacher (Faez & Karas, 2017).

For area of linguistic competence itself, some studies have enhanced that non-native

teachers’ capability will likely to bring impact to their professional belief of their

self-efficacy, their teaching professionalism and their pedagogical processes (e.g.

Dellinger, 2008). Regarding to the significance of this issue, the teacher

development has been studied in some ways to observe that the teachers’ English

proficiency level plays role to shape or obstruct their self-efficacy perceptions. This

study attempted to illuminate under-researched scope.

There are three studies that reported the connection between self-efficacy of

teachers and their language proficiency. Those have been done by; 1) Eslami &

Fatahi, (2008), 2) Khansan and Yousefi, (2015), and 3) Butler, (2004). Those

studies showed the varying results of both correlations. Research found by Eslami

& Fatahi (2008) showed the self – efficacy of Forty Iranian EFL pedagogues who

own one to five years of English teaching experiences at various high schools in

Tehran that would establish a remarkable correlation among language proficiency

of teachers’ including speaking, reading, listening, and writing. The result shown

that the more teachers feel efficacious, the more comfortable they are in delivering

and using communicative-based teaching strategies. Alike to Eslami’s, study

examined the connection between teachers’ self-confidence and teaching

proficiency. Similar result was found by Butler (2004) which showed a remarkable

relationship between teachers’ self-perception and linguistic competence.

Compatible to those studies conducted previously, this research objected to


Exposure Journal 44

Volume 9 (1) May 2020, page 40-58


Available online:



discover if there any statistically remarkable relationship which live between

teachers’ sense of self-efficacy, language proficiency, and teaching competence in

Indonesia. Furthermore, the following research question of this paper was: Is there

any significant remarkable connection between tertiary level education of non-

native English teachers’ self-confidence and their proficiency level?

LITERATURE REVIEW

Self-Efficacy

Akbari & Tavassoli (2014, p.28) Interprets self-efficacy sense as

individual’s determination to measure their ability to arrange and also implement

courses of action to create customized types of individual’s execution. They

concerned more of teacher’s self-efficacy, which runs to what someone would

decide to act, and also the attempt level and persistence when combating troubles

and consequences. This is an active synergy, some other belief systems which are

varied in different circumstances and actions. Self-efficacy is common belief of

someone’s capabilities to control their crucial action successfully. Furthermore,

Ayoobiyan & Soleimani (2015), explains that individual’s self-efficacy is an

encouragement which set up to influence students to build a self-determining

behavior. Regarding to someone’s beliefs that he/she own the capabilities to

achieve certain level of action and accomplishment, he/she own a self-system which

allow them to scale and control over their feelings, encouragements, thought and

action choices. Self – efficacy beliefs would turn individual into presenting

someone with the ability to give impact to their cognitive process and actions and

to modify their environments. Akbari & Tavassoli (2014, p.29) declares that

someone’s motivational level, affective states and also action are determined on

what they believe rather than what is true objectives. Thus, human functioning

could be measured by their beliefs of their capability on what they truly capable of

doing, in actual facts those beliefs could help to choose what someone can really

do by using their cognition and skills.

To measure self-efficacy effectively, Bandura (1997) composed an indicator

which consists on seven sub-scales, which include decision making, the efficacy in

influencing acquiring, school resources efficacy, teaching efficacy, disciplinary


Exposure Journal 45

Volume 9 (1) May 2020, page 40-58


Available online:



efficacy, obtaining parental assistance efficacy, joining into community efficacy,

and efficacy of leading into an open school environment.

English Proficiency

The capability in English language teaching produces a content or subject

which relates to knowledge, pedagogical skills and capability to deliver material in

English, a skill which is commonly viewed to influence teacher’s pedagogical

language proficiency (Richards, 2017). Based on conventional wisdom, the more

someone knows a language, the better they are to teach it. For this reason, it is

regularly assumed that they are usually the native teacher ones (English, French,

Chinese etc.) and is at more advantage compared to the ones who aren’t, that

assumption is seen as the legacy in teaching target language and also valuing the

“nativeness” as criteria to be a “good” language teacher, also being another point

which has been mentioned as “native–speakerism” (Renandya et al, 2018).

Describing that proficiency is not as easy or direct task, it is a contextual based and

different levels and also proficiency types which re required for various contexts

and aims. Blending this complexity will be the different varieties of English which

exists. Hence, the teacher’s language proficiency issue and proficiency level are

needed for teachers to be effective (Richards, 2017).

Richards (2010) Stated that teachers shall achieve a specific level of

proficiency to teach effectively. Stressing the threshold level conception, Tsang,

(2017) stated pedagogue’s universal proficiency becomes a considerable role in

classroom activity, however, it only applicable in certain extend. When a certain

proficiency threshold is reached, the other factors including teachers’ pedagogical

skills and also the personality characteristics play a more important role. But

minding the varied tasks, contexts, contents and also cultures that teachers are

meant to perform in, this threshold carries on a shifty idea.

Meanwhile, there are many who have declared that native-like English

language mastery individual is not mandatorily to teach well. Akbari & Tavassoli,

(2014) Stated that mostly English teachers in the world are non-natives and are not

necessary to be native-like English language mastery individuals to teach well.

Freeman et al (2017) also presented an idea that common language proficiency is

needed for teaching English. According to a “Language for specific purposes” has

complied the general words and phrases which are used by English language


Exposure Journal 46

Volume 9 (1) May 2020, page 40-58


Available online:



teachers in the classroom. The English language for teaching is still developing and

be an approach that researchers proclaim could help the ELT field to prepare

English teachers for specific tasks in the classroom activity (Freeman et al, 2015).

In conclusion, the language proficiency level is a key component which

compose a language teacher’s knowledge. Insufficiently, a professional language

teacher is supposed to have adequate professional knowledge of English language,

pedagogical content knowledge which relate to teacher’s English pedagogical

skills, and enough language proficiency level to teach effectively. The relationship

between language proficiency and teaching effectiveness is not a perfect one,

indeed. It is not a case which relate to individual with a high proficiency level who

could automatically teach effectively. If that were the case, then all natives could

be the suitable ones to teach English in classroom effectively. However, research

has shown that eve for high proficient natives of their English, they would still need

to learn “classroom language” and utilize properly to teaching language effectively

during teaching activities. The proficient users are acknowledged to have a clear

and great command in using the targeted language, they would easily understand

the language, express various ideas and explain them clearly either in speech or

writing and could interact with other speakers effortlessly (Richards, 2017). Five

performance indicators are commonly used to assess language proficiency which

include; accuracy, fluency, complexity, appropriacy and capacity (Richards, 2017).

It is key to point out that having a great proficiency level is needed for effective

teaching experience. Owning an adequate proficiency will make teachers to steer

their lesson planning more smoothly and efficiently. Research has shown that

teachers with a higher language proficiency level would likely be more adaptable

to utilize it in the classroom and provide proper language support for their learners’

(Richards, 2017).

RESEARCH METHOD

Research Design

This research is quantitative research. Muijs (2004, p.1) explained the

quantitative research as elaborating phenomena by obtaining numerical data which

have been analyzed mathematically based on the methods that have been chosen (in

particular statistics). It was an appropriate approach as the researcher obtained the


Exposure Journal 47

Volume 9 (1) May 2020, page 40-58


Available online:



data from questionnaires which are filled out by teachers in D3 English Program of

Universitas Merdeka, Malang. This research conducted in order to observe the

correlation between pedagogues’ self- efficacy and their linguistic competence.

Sampling

The data were obtained from 11 EFL teachers of Private University in Malang.

Respondents of this research are all permanent teachers in D3 English program,

Universitas Merdeka, Malang. There were 8 females and 2 males. Their age was

ranged 25 to 32 years old. All of them taught English at University. They lead

classes according to current curriculum which consist of mandatory and elective

courses. The classes are consisted of around 30 students. Almost all teachers have

earned master degrees, but there are two who were registered in Doctorate level

classes. The teaching experiences are varied from 4 to 15 years, with the mean

number of 9 years.

Instrument

Self-Efficacy Questionnaire

This research is using and modifying the questionnaires of Bandura’s

Instrument Teacher “Self-Efficacy Scale”. This “Teacher Efficacy Scale” (TES)

used in order to obtain qualitative data of teachers’ self-efficacy level. This

questionnaire would judge the teachers’ perceptions on both personal and genera;

self-efficacies. The personal efficacy could assess teachers’ conceptions and

perspective of their teaching capacities to challenge learners from less encouraging

environment to attain high and acceptable academic outcomes. The common

efficacy, concerns to teachers’ perception about their teaching ability to face the

negative and undesirable impacts on students’ background. This is a 30-items form

which compiled into “Bandura’s Teacher Efficacy Scale” which has been divided

into 7 indicators which include; “Efficacy that influences Decision Making”.

“Efficacy that Influence School Resources”, “Self-Efficacy Instructional”,

“Disciplinary Self-Efficacy”, “Efficacy to Obtain Parental Involvement”, “Efficacy

to obtain Community Involvement”, and “Efficacy to create a Positive School

Climate”. Teachers have to choose a 5 – point scale to rank from 1 (Nothing), 2

(Very Little), 3 (Some Influence), 4 (Quite a Bit), 5 (A Great Deal). Those

questionnaires were able to react proper reliability index of 0.79 employing those

30-items form.


Exposure Journal 48

Volume 9 (1) May 2020, page 40-58


Available online:



It shall be noted that in current study, to investigate if there is any changes

were needed in the survey, and all of items in the questionnaire were clear enough

for participants to understand, the questionnaire was shared to ten participants

similar to the actual research and the Cronbach’s alpha results guaranteed a

satisfying reliability index (α = .86).

Table 1 The Distribution of Items of Bandura’s Instrument Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale

Item Number Type of Statement Total Item

1-2 “Efficacy to Influence Decision making” 2

3 “Efficacy to Influence School Resources” 1

4-12 “Instructional Self-Efficacy” 9

13-16 “Disciplinary Self-Efficacy” 3

17-19 “Efficacy to Enlist Parental Involvement” 3

20-23 “Efficacy to Enlist Community Involvement” 4

24-30 “Efficacy to Create a Positive School Climate” 8

7 categories of teacher self-efficacy 30 items

Table 2 Guidelines of Correlation Coefficient Interpretation (Sarjono, H & Julianita, W, 201, p.90,

as cited in Nuril, 2011, p.33)

Coefficient Interval Correlation Level

0.80 - 1.000 Very High

0.60 – 0.799 High

0.40 – 0.599 Sufficient

0.20 – 0.399 Low

0.00 – 0.199 Very Low

Language Proficiency Measurement

According to Butler (2004) the teacher respondents were required to rate

their English Proficiency Level combined with the least English proficiency level

that are considered as essential for tertiary level of education. The gap between

present and least levels could reflect the relative nature of self-perceptions and

norms deciding a qualified teacher could also bring impact of language competence

(Butler, 2004). The proficiency level in this research was examined in seven

language subskills which include; Speaking, Listening, Reading, Writing,

Vocabulary, Grammar and Pronunciation. This scale was based on 6-point’s scale

which are level 1 mirrored as the lowest proficiency level, and level 6 as the highest

levels and considered as native-like competence. According to obtained scores from

participants of this research, those who got score below mean (M = 0.16) were

regarded as low-proficiency teacher and those with above mean were regarded as

high proficiency teacher. This scale was exposed to reliability analysis and the alpha

pin pointed level a high level (0.90).


Exposure Journal 49

Volume 9 (1) May 2020, page 40-58


Available online:



Research Procedure

The data were obtained from 11 EFL University teachers. The questionnaires

were registered to the teachers by shared via Google form because the data could

be gathered from many respondents in short period of time. The demographic

information about teachers regarding their ages, genders, years of teaching

experiences, teaching places and education levels were included in to the last page

of questionnaires. Hence, it can make the respondent’s focus on the provided

statement in the questionnaires. The questionnaires completion took for less than

30 minutes and were sent back within few days.

Data analysis

The data obtained for this research were analyzed by using (SPSS) version 21.

A significance level of 0.05 (p < 0.05) was set up. The mean and standard deviation

score in descriptive statistics analysis and a Pearson product moment relation were

used to answer the research question.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

Perceived Levels of Self-Efficacy for Each Categorical of Instructional

Strategies

Bandura (1997) assembled self-efficacy into seven indicators which

include “efficacy that influence decision making”, “efficacy that influence school

resources”, “instructional self-efficacy”, “Disciplinary self-efficacy”, and

“Efficacy to create a Positive School Climate”. Based on the shared questionnaires,

here are the results:

Table 3 Teachers’ Self-Efficacy Beliefs

No. Item of Efficacy Subscales Mean SD

“Efficacy to Influence Decision making”

1. How much your effort to affect an outcome produced

by the department?

4.55 0.522

2. How much can you openly speak your opinion

regarding essential issue in the department?

4.45 0.522

“Efficacy to Influence School Resources”

3. How much your effort to prepare teaching-learning

tools and materials that you need?

4.55 0.522

“Instructional Self-Efficacy”

4. How much your effort to affect your class in your

department?

4.55 0.522


Exposure Journal 50

Volume 9 (1) May 2020, page 40-58


Available online:



5. How much can you manage to get through to the most

complicated situation in class?

4.36 0.505

6. How much your effort to foster learning of lack

supportive environment of your students?

4.36 0.505

7. How much can you do to help your students in solving

difficult task?

4.27 0.786

8. How much can you do to help students to recall what

they have learned previously?

4.36 0.505

9. How much can you do to improve students with low

motivation in teaching and learning process?

4.55 0.522

10. How much can you do to make your students work in

pair or in group with other students?

4.00 0.632

11. How much can you reduce or solve the unfavorable

situation in teaching and learning process?

4.27 0.467

12. How much your effort to motivate your students to

finish assignment?

4.36 0.505

“Disciplinary Self-Efficacy”

13. How much can you do to encourage your students to

obey class rules?

4.36 0.505

14. How much can you do in order to regulate misbehavior

in classroom?

4.00 0.632

15. How much can you do to avoid unpredictable situation

in your department?

4.18 0.751

“Efficacy to Enlist Parental Involvement”

16. How much your effort to make parents involved in

teaching and learning activities?

4.45 0.522

17. How much your effort to make students achieve

learning objectives?

4.27 0.467

18. How much can you do to provide comfortable

atmosphere for parents who want to visit department?

4.27 0.467

“Efficacy to Enlist Community Involvement”

19. How much your effort in order to make other

institution interested in partnering with your

department?

4.36 0.505

20. How much can you do to engage religious institution

in collaborating with your department?

4.36 0.505

21. How much your contribution to make business in

collaborating with your department?

4.00 0.632

22. How much can you do to encourage local universities

to collaborate with your department?

4.18 0.751

“Efficacy to Create a Positive School Climate”

23. How much your effort to make a safe environment in

your department?

4.64 0.505

24. How much can you do to help your students love going

to campus?

4.55 0.522

25. How much your effort to make your students trust their

teachers?

4.55 0.522

26. How much can you do to support other instructors to

improve teaching ability?

4.36 0.505


Exposure Journal 51

Volume 9 (1) May 2020, page 40-58


Available online:



27. How much can you do to improve coordination among

teachers and staffs to ensure that the department works

effectively?

4.36 0.674

28. How much your effort to reduce drop-out rate? 4.36 0.505

29. How much can you do in order to reduce absenteeism

rate of your students?

4.45 0.522

30. How much your effort to make your students trust with

their self that they can achieve their learning goals?

4.18 0.603

Total 4.35 0.214

According to the first indicator, “Efficacy in Influence Decision Making”,

there were two items, the first one is “How much your effort to affect an outcome

produced by the department?”, and the second is “How much can you openly speak

your opinion regarding essential issue in the department?”. The highest mean score

is found in the first item, which is 4.55 which shows that lecturers tend to feel that

they can affect the decisions taken by the department.

The second indicator is “Efficacy to Influence School Resources”, there are

only one item within this indicator that is “How much your effort to prepare

teaching-learning tools and materials that you need??” The mean score perceived

from the questionnaire result is 4.55 means that can get many instructional materials

and equipment both from the Department to support the teachers or any sources.

In the third indicator, “Instructional Self-Efficacy”, there are nine items, the

first item is “How much your effort to affect your class in your department?”, then

“How much can you manage to get through to the most complicated situation in

class?”, third “How much your effort to foster learning of lack supportive

environment of your students?”, next “How much can you do to help your students

in solving difficult task?”, fifth “How much can you do to help students to recall

what they have learned previously?”, the next is “How much can you do to improve

students with low motivation in teaching and learning process?”, then “How much

can you do to make your students work in pair or in group with other students?”,

“How much can you reduce or solve the unfavorable situation in teaching and

learning process?”, and finally “How much your effort to motivate your students to

finish assignment?”. From those nine items, the highest mean score is in the first

item and the sixth item with value 4.55 which indicates that lecturers have the sense

that they can influence the size of the department and can motivate students well.


Exposure Journal 52

Volume 9 (1) May 2020, page 40-58


Available online:



In the fourth indicator, “Disciplinary Self-Efficacy”, there are three items,

the first is “How much can you do to encourage your students to obey class rules?”,

then “How much can you do in order to regulate misbehavior in classroom?” and

“How much can you do to avoid unpredictable situation in your department?”. From

all three items, item with the highest mean score is the first item which is question

about lecturer influences the students to follow the rules with mean value 4,36, that

indicates that majority of lecturers have the sense of efficacy that they have big

influence at making their students follow classroom rules.

In the fifth indicator, “Efficacy to Enlist Parental Involvement”, there are

three items, the first is “How much your effort to make parents involved in teaching

and learning activities?”, the next “How much your effort to make students achieve

learning objectives?”, and “How much can you do to provide comfortable

atmosphere for parents who want to visit department?”. From all three items, item

with the highest mean score is the first item which is questioning lecturers’ role in

involving parent at department activities with mean value 4,45, that indicates that

lecturers have the sense of efficacy that they can influence parents to involve in

department activities.

In the sixth indicator, “Efficacy to Enlist Community Involvement”, there

are fourth items, the first is “How much your effort in order to make other institution

interested in partnering with your department?”, “How much can you do to engage

religious institution in collaborating with your department?”, “How much your

contribution to make business in collaborating with your department?”, and “How

much can you do to encourage local universities to collaborate with your

department?”. From those four items, the highest mean values were the first and

also second ones which question the teacher’s role to influence community and

religious institution to cooperate with the department’s activities with mean score

of 4,36.

The last indicator, “Efficacy to Create a Positive School Climate”, there are

eight items, the first is “How much your effort to make a safe environment in your

department?”, the second “How much can you do to help your students love going

to campus?”, the next is “How much your effort to make your students trust their

teachers?”, fourth is “How much can you do to support other instructors to improve

teaching ability?, fifth is “How much can you do to improve coordination among


Exposure Journal 53

Volume 9 (1) May 2020, page 40-58


Available online:



teachers and staffs to ensure that the department works effectively?, the next is

“How much your effort to reduce drop-out rate?”, “How much can you do in order

to reduce absenteeism rate of your students?”, “and “How much your effort to make

your students trust with themselves that they can achieve their learning goals?”.

Based on the all eight items, the highest mean score one is the first item which asked

the teacher about their role to create the department environment that make students

feel safe with mean score which is 4,64. The whole total of mean score was 4.35.

Relationship between Teachers’ Self-Efficacy and Language Proficiency

From the Bandura’s Instrument of Teacher’s Self-Efficacy Scale data were

collected, the correlation between teacher’s self-efficacy and language proficiency

were measured by using Pearson Product-Moment correlation. This statistical

procedure was used to answer the research problem of the study. Cohen (2007) says

that Pearson Product-Moment correlation is a statistic to measure the degree of

association between two interval or ration variables. The Pearson correlation is

reported in table 4.2.

Table 4 Pearson Product Moment Correlations between Self-Efficacy and Language Proficiency

Language

Proficiency Self-efficacy

Language

Proficiency

Pearson Correlation 1 0.779**

Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000

N 11 11

Self-Efficacy

Pearson Correlation 0.779** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) 0.000

N 11 11

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Pearson correlation coefficients symbolized by r that is ranged between -1

to +1. When the r-score closer to 1, it shows that the result has stronger relationship,

and vice versa. A significant correlation can be observed when there is an increase

in one variable that is followed by an increase in another variable. Positive

relationships are predefined with a plus (+) sign and negative correlations are

prefaced with a minus (-) sign. Therefore, + 1.0 reflected a perfect positive

relationship. On the other hand, a negative correlation can be found when there is

an increase in one variable is followed by a decrease in another variable. Therefore,

- 1.0 reflected perfect negative relationship. However, if the coefficient is 0 (zero),

it implies that there is no correlation between two variables. It suggests that the


Exposure Journal 54

Volume 9 (1) May 2020, page 40-58


Available online:



people’s performance on one variable is unrelated to their performance on the

second variable.

Based on the Table 4.2, it shown that Teacher’s self-efficacy correlate with

language proficiency with the score 0.779 (r=0.77). It falls into high correlation

since it is in range of 0.60 – 0.799. The sign of two stars above the score indicate

that the correlation coefficient is significant at the level of 0.01. Based on the

correlation coefficient Table of Pearson Product-Moment calculated with Microsoft

excel, because the sample used in this study is 11 teachers, the r-score must be

greater than r-table (r > 0.633), so, it shows that there is a correlation between two

variables. Since the score of r is greater than r table (0.77 > 0.633), it shows that

there is a correlation or relationship between teachers’ self-efficacy and Language

proficiency.

Another piece of information is whether or not the relationship is

statistically significant. The significant level is calculated automatically by SPSS.

The significance of correlation is seen by the significance score (p). When the score

of p < .05, the correlation is significant and when the score of p > .05, the correlation

is not significant. Based on the result of Pearson Product-Moment analysis shown

in the Table 4.2, it is obtained that the p-score is less than 0.05 (p=.001). Then, it

can be concluded that self-efficacy found to have statistically significant correlation

with language proficiency. The last information is N or the number of cases for

which a study has information on both variables. Based on the result of Pearson

Product-Moment analysis shown in the Table 4.2, it is obtained that the total of

sample used in this study is 11 (N=11).

In order to see if the level of proficiency could predict the changes in the

dependent variable, that is the self-efficacy, a Regression analysis was carried out.

The results are depicted in Table 4.3.

Table 5 Regression Results for Proficiency Predicting Efficacy

Model Unstandardized

Coefficients

Standardized

Coefficients t Sig.

B Std. Error Beta

1 (Constant) 39.635 2.483 18.043 0.000

Proficiency 6.043 1.793 .779 5.297 0.000

a. Dependent Variable: Efficacy

According to Table 4.3, the regression model statistically significantly

predicted the efficacy variable showing that it is a good fit for the data (β = 0.779,


Exposure Journal 55

Volume 9 (1) May 2020, page 40-58


Available online:



p = .000). The quantitative analyses of the data clearly showed a significant

relationship between the teachers’ level of proficiency and their self-efficacy

ratings. English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teachers’ high sense of efficiency

suggests their commitment. The commitment naturally brings with itself the

spending of more time to the areas of difficulty in teaching and the devotion of more

time to academic subjects, which requires a high level of linguistic capability. In

fact, this result was quite relevant since linguistic competence brings about the

adequate skills of handling the classroom, dealing with challenges and keeping the

necessary efficacy for the fulfillment of the job.

CONCLUSION

In the teaching area, proficiency and efficacy has been an arguable issue,

with different findings. Nhung (2017) Proposed that instructional proficiency is the

main determinant of self-efficacy beliefs for teachers, both linguistic and

pedagogical competences which are become significant contributors to understand

their professional status, developments and instructional approaches which are

implemented by English teachers. He also mentioned that educational program

plays a big role to emerge and develop the teacher’s sense of self-efficacy and the

development of instructional abilities. Then, Freeman et al (2015). in his respectful

argument states that experience of training which help teachers to success the

teaching task will give a big foundation to develop the efficacy sense in their career

development. The assumption is that efficient training has to give teachers some

opportunities to extend their training activities for teaching. Hence, the teaching

efficacy belief can be improved and strengthened, in turn, it can lead their teaching

ability to deliver better in the class.

Some available other ways to help to increase which teachers’ self-efficacy

can be emerged. One way is the receiving of constructive feedback and support

from others (Azizah et al, 2018). Bandura, 1997, p.106) proposes that “mentors

must be good diagnosticians of strengths and weaknesses and knowledgeable about

how to tailor activities to turn potentiality into actuality”. Feedback to teachers can

be effective only if it is presented constructively and balanced with positive

feedback. When teachers are provided clear and effective feedback, they need to be

guided to reach the development of competence (Sadhegi et al, 2019). Another way


Exposure Journal 56

Volume 9 (1) May 2020, page 40-58


Available online:



of increases teacher’s self-efficacy ability is that they can be given an opportunity

by their trainers to observe a model teacher (Gearing, 1999). This does not mean

“the initiation by imitation” in (Widdowson, 2003) terms. In the opinion of

Widdowson (2003, p.3), “It is widely supposed that the most effective kind of

preparation for novice teachers is to develop common sense or “know how” by

following the example of teachers who have already become expert by experience”.

He argues that there are problems with this approach. It presupposes that the

experience and the expertise of teachers are relevant and effective for the present

needs of novice teachers. If novice teachers are to learn from their more experienced

colleagues, it should not be limited to uncritical and passive imitation. Teachers

shall face and adapt the activities of more expert teachers to their own classroom

contexts. They should be reflective upon the teaching they do.

REFERENCES

Akbari, R., & Tavassoli, K. (2014). Developing an ELT ContextSpecific Teacher

Efficacy Instrument. RELC journal, 45(1), 27-50.

Ayoobiyan, H., & Soleimani, T. (2015). The Relationship between Self-Efficacy

and Language Proficiency: A Case of Iranian Medical Students. Journal of

Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 2(4), 158-167.

Azizah, U. A., Nurkamto, J., Drajati, N. A., & Tosraji, T. (2018). In-Service English

Teacher’s Perceptions of Reflective Teacher Diary to Promote Professional

Development. International Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious

Understanding, 5(2), 1-8. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.18415/ijmmu.v5i2.119

Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and

functioning. . Educational Psychologist, 28, 117-148.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

Butler, Y. (2004). What level of English proficiency do elementary school teachers

need to attain to teach EFL? Case studies from Korea, Taiwan, and Japan.

TESOL Quarterly, 38, 245-278.

Cohen, L. (2007). Research methods in education: Sixth Edition. London: Taylor

and Francies.

Dellinger, A. B. (2008). Measuring teachers’ selfefficacy beliefs: development and

use of the TEBS-self. An International Journal of Research and Studies, 24,

751-766.

Eslami, Z. R., & Fatahi, A. (2008). Teachers' Sense of Self-Efficacy, English

Proficiency, and Instructional Strategies: A Study of Nonnative EFL

Teachers in Iran. TESL-EJ, 11(4), 1-19.


Exposure Journal 57

Volume 9 (1) May 2020, page 40-58


Available online:



Faez, F., & Karas, M. (2017). Connecting Language Proficiency to (Self-Reported)

Teaching Ability: A Review and Analysis of Research. RELC journal,

48(1), 135-151.

Freeman, D., Katz, A., Gomez, P. G., & Burns, A. (2015). English-for-Teaching:

rethinking teacher proficiency in the classroom. ELT journal, 69(2), 129-

139. doi:10.1093/elt/ccu074

Gearing, K. (1999). Helping less-experienced teachers of English to evaluate

teachers' guides . ELT journal, 53(2), 122-127.

DOI:https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/53.2.122

Khanshan, S. K., & Yousefi, M. H. (2015). The Relationship between Tertiary

Level EFL Teachers’ Self-Efficacy Perceptions and Their Level of

Linguistic Proficiency. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Discourse

Analysis, 3(2), 73-89.

Muijs, D. (2004). Doing quantitative research in education with SPSS. London:

SAGE Publications Ltd.

Nakata, Y. (2010). Improving the Classroom Language Proficiency of Non-native

Teachers of English: What and How?. RELC journal, 41(1), 76-90.

Nhung, P. T. (2017). General English Proficiency or English for Teaching? The

Preferences of In-service Teachers. RELC journal, 47(1), 1-14.

Nuril, F. (2011). The application of language learning strategies and their

relationship with English proficiency: a study at international undergraduate

program of faculty of economics and business university of brawijaya.

Unpublished Thesis.

Renandya, W. A., Hamied, F. A., & Nurkamto, J. (2018). Language Proficiency in

Indonesia: Issue and Prospects. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 15(3), 618-629.

doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2018.15.3.4.618

Richards, J. C. (2010). Competence and Performance in Language Teaching. RELC

journal, 41(2), 101-122.

Richards, J. C. (2017). Teaching English through English: Proficiency, Pedagogy

and Performance. RELC journal, 48(1), 7-30.

Sadhegi, K., Richards, J. C., & Ghaderi, F. (2019). Perceived versus Measured

Teaching Effectiveness: Does Teacher Proficiency Matter? RELC journal,

47(1) 1-14. doi:10.1177/0033688219845933

Sahin, I., & Yildirim, A. (2016). Transforming professional learning into practice.

ELT journal, 70, 241-252.

Siew, M., & Wong, L. (2005). Language Learning Strategies and Language Self-

Efficacy. RELC journal, 36(3), 245-269.

Tsang, A. (2017). EFL/ESL Teachers’ General Language Proficiency and Learners’

Engagement. RELC Journal, 49(1), 99-133.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental process.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.


Exposure Journal 58

Volume 9 (1) May 2020, page 40-58


Available online:



Widdowson, H. G. (2003). Defining issues in English language teaching. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

How to Cite (APA style):

Rachmawati, Dwita Laksmita. (2020, May). Teachers’ Sense of Self-Efficacy,English

Proficiency,and Teaching Ability in EFL Setting:a Case Study in Tertiary Level.

Exposure: Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris, 9 (1), 40-58. Retrieved from

https://journal.unismuh.ac.id/index.php/exposure/article/view/3112


Documents

TEACHERS' SENSE OF SELF-EFFICACY, ENGLISH PROFICIENCY, …